Places of Worship Act: Unwise to open a Pandora’s box

It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court has decided to examine the validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act which was passed by Parliament and enacted into law in 1991 at the height of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement. The law bans the conversion of religious places and maintains their “religious character” as it existed on August 15, 1947, with an exception for Babri Masjid. The Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute was already in court and was hence exempted from its purview. But public interest litigation (PIL) has now been filed in the court challenging the constitutional validity of the law, and the court has issued notice to the government. A court in Mathura is already examining a suit for the removal of Masjid Idgah at the site of Krishna Janmabhoomi in Mathura. A Varanasi court has issued notices on a plea for the removal of the Gyanwapi mosque adjacent to the Kashi Vishwanath temple.

The PIL has contended that the Act has taken away the rights of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs to restore their places of worship destroyed by “barbaric invaders.” It says that the inclusion of the birthplace of Krishna in the law while excluding that of Rama, is “arbitrary and irrational.’’ The cut-off date of August 15, 1947 has also been termed arbitrary, and the petition has asked why Hindus and others “cannot seek judicial remedy to undo the barbarian acts…” The apprehension that politically exploitable demands to “correct historical wrongs,” once started, would put the country on a never-ending path back to the medieval ages, seems set to come true. One would think that a country that aspires to be a superpower should look to the future, rather than to the past, and move forward, and it was a sensible decision in the 1991 Act to fix a cut-off point on the day the country became independent and made a fresh start. But what started with Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi is now sought to be extended to Kashi and Mathura. Will it end there?

It is surprising that the Supreme Court has decided to look again at this law which it had itself upheld and commended in the 2019 Ayodhya judgement. The five-judge Constitution Bench had said that “the State has, by enacting the (1991) law, enforced a constitutional commitment and operationalised its constitutional obligations to uphold the equality of all religions and secularism which is a part of the basic features of the Constitution. The Places of Worship Act imposes a non-derogable obligation towards enforcing our commitment to secularism.” To reopen the law, after such clear and firm words, would be unwise and would amount to opening Pandora's box.